Binding of Satan

[Darfius]

Darfius,

I'm glad to see you've set yourself up as the sole interpreter of the Bible and judge of people's beliefs. You rarely give a reference to anybody else, or even to the Bible. How many commentaries have you studied? I would be surprised to see you give any support for your views, except maybe the Left Behind novel. I've read 147 books on eschatology, 40 books on the church fathers, and 151 other books on religion. Most of those in the last ten years. That's documented at Goodreads.com. I've read several translations of the Bible cover to cover. The NT over a dozen times and the OT three times. That's dwarfed by the amount of time I've spent studying it. You can believe whatever you want based on your own opinions, but to this point, I haven't seen any reason to take you seriously.

Scripture Verse: Luke 12

⁵⁷ “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

© Copyright Original Source

I've read and know more than you, but it doesn't matter if you believe that. Nor do the opinions of the many commentaries you've read or anyone's opinion matter. What matters is what can be proven and what can be shown in God's word. I reference the Bible in nearly every one of my posts. You just don't like what it says, so you quote Gnostic knockoffs.

"The nations" or Gentiles is the Biblical name for those who are not God's people. Even when the Gentiles are accepted into God's people group, they are grafted in and become part of Israel. (That's a reference to Scripture, but I'm not going to always cite it and play connect the dots for you). So the point of saying that Satan will no longer be able to deceive "the nations" is to declare that everyone will have an equal spiritual playing field and men will be even more without excuse than they are now while Satan is the god of this world (which Paul said long after the cross). This will be important when Satan is released at the end of the Millenium and still finds people willing to rebel against God even after paradisiacal conditions have been restored to earth. Just as God's grace abounds when sin abounds, sin will abound when His grace abounds, because men suppress the truth by their wickedness. (More Scripture).

[eschaton]

I am honored to have a discussion with such an expert who as usual gives no citations. Yes, the nations are against Christ, but they eventually come to worship at his feet after He has corrected them. Note how many are from the nations before the throne of God in chapter seven. They have been through great tribulation. God chastens those he loves (Heb 12:6)

Revelation 7:9
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Revelation 12:5
And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Revelation 15:4
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
Revelation 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

[eschaton]

Scripture Verse: Luke 12

⁵⁷ “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?

© Copyright Original Source

I've read and know more than you, but it doesn't matter if you believe that. Nor do the opinions of the many commentaries you've read or anyone's opinion matter. What matters is what can be proven and what can be shown in God's word. I reference the Bible in nearly every one of my posts. You just don't like what it says, so you quote Gnostic knockoffs.

"The nations" or Gentiles is the Biblical name for those who are not God's people. Even when the Gentiles are accepted into God's people group, they are grafted in and become part of Israel. (That's a reference to Scripture, but I'm not going to always cite it and play connect the dots for you). So the point of saying that Satan will no longer be able to deceive "the nations" is to declare that everyone will have an equal spiritual playing field and men will be even more without excuse than they are now while Satan is the god of this world (which Paul said long after the cross). This will be important when Satan is released at the end of the Millenium and still finds people willing to rebel against God even after paradisiacal conditions have been restored to earth. Just as God's grace abounds when sin abounds, sin will abound when His grace abounds, because men suppress the truth by their wickedness. (More Scripture).

BTW, you did cite Luke 12. Jesus said;
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

[Darfius]

You're a funny guy Sean. Gnostic comes from gnosis, which is knowledge. Are you against knowledge? It would seem so. Show me one verse in the Bible that is against knowledge. I know of one.

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: KJV
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” ESV

Who was probably the biggest opponent of Gnosticism in the early church? I would say, Irenaeus. In his fourth book he says:



Irenaeus wasn't against knowledge. The correct doctrine is based on knowledge.

When I was a kid I loved comic books. Even as an adult I've enjoyed the Marvel brand of movies. However, over the top action where superheroes wrestle with tanks, planes, and other totally ridiculous scenarios have kind of lost me. Maybe I've finally outgrown this sort of thing.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

The idea that Jesus comes to earth on a literal horse and dispatches modern armies with wild gyrations of his head seems sort of like an Avengers movie. It was even considered ridiculous in the ancient world.

Sean is a funny guy. But you're a joke. Let me drop some gnosis on you.

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 1

¹⁸ For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

²⁰ Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

²⁶ Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. ²⁷ But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. ²⁸ God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, ²⁹ so that no one may boast before him. ³⁰ It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. ³¹ Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

© Copyright Original Source

Gnosticism (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός, romanized: gnōstikós, Koine Greek: [ɡˠno̞s.tiˈkos], "having knowledge") is a collection of religious ideas and systems which originated in the first century AD among early Christian and Jewish sects.^[1]These various groups emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church. Viewing material existence as flawed or evil, Gnostic cosmogony generally presents a distinction between a supreme, hidden God and a malevolent lesser divinity (sometimes associated with the Yahweh of the Old Testament)^[2] who is responsible for creating the material universe.^[3] Gnostics considered the principal element of salvation to be direct knowledge of the supreme divinity in the form of mystical or esoteric insight. Many Gnostic texts deal not in concepts of sin and repentance, but with illusion and enlightenment.

...By the Hellenistic period, it began also to be associated with Greco-Roman mysteries, becoming synonymous with the Greek term musterion.

...Alexandria was of central importance for the birth of Gnosticism. The Christian ecclesia (i. e. congregation, church) was of Jewish–Christian origin, but also attracted Greek members, and various strand of thought were available, such as "Judaic apocalypticism, speculation on divine wisdom, Greek philosophy, and Hellenistic mystery religions."

The Gnostics you seem to be a fan of were just the Christian flavor of the "mystery school" adherents that had existed since Babel. Men who favored their own "wisdom" as opposed to God's rule and rules. This is who Paul is mocking if you understand the terms he uses. Sophia, for example, the word he uses for wisdom, is a loaded term, as he well knew:

In Gnostic tradition, the term Sophia (Σοφία, Greek for "wisdom") refers to the final and lowest emanation of God. In most, if not all, versions of the gnostic myth, Sophia births the demiurge, who in turn brings about the creation of materiality. The positive or negative depiction of materiality thus resides a great deal on mythic depictions of Sophia's actions. She is occasionally referred to by the Hebrew equivalent of Achamoth (this is a feature of Ptolemy's version of the Valentinian gnostic myth). Jewish Gnosticism with a focus on Sophia was active by 90 AD.^{[citation needed]}

Sophia, emanating without her partner, resulted in the production of the Demiurge (Greek: lit. "public builder"),^[54] who is also referred to as Yaldabaoth and variations thereof in some Gnostic texts.^[47] This creature is concealed outside the pleroma;^[47] in isolation, and thinking itself alone, it creates materiality and a host of co-actors, referred to as archons. The demiurge is responsible for the creation of mankind; trapping elements of the pleroma stolen from Sophia inside human bodies.^[47][55] In response, the Godhead emanates two savior aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit; Christ then embodies itself in the form of Jesus, in order to be able to teach man how to achieve gnosis, by which they may return to the pleroma.
[from the Gnosticism link]

Gnostics (and other mystery school adherents) had no interest in hearing about mankind's sin or the need for repentance. They thought they could think themselves to godhood. Ya know, like the devil told Adam and Eve in the garden.


And:

Scripture Verse: 1 Corinthians 2

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. ² For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³ I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. ⁴ My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, ⁵ so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

⁶ We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. ⁹ However, as it is written:

“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

¹⁰ these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. ¹¹ For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. ¹² What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. ¹³ This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. ¹⁴ The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. ¹⁵ The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, ¹⁶ for,

“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind [nous] of Christ.

© Copyright Original Source

Again Paul contrasts the so-called "wisdom" of men with God's wisdom, which wisdom of and from God is only available to those who love and obey Jesus Christ, when they take on His mind/Spirit/nous and become Christians, which is the meaning of the Greek word Christianous, proving that the term originally meant little Christ, but I've been too busy to draw up a formal post showing that in the other "false Christian" thread where I'm sure the piglet thinks he one upped me.

Paul even contrasts the "mystery of God" with the "mysteries" of the "wisdom" school adherents. This mystery of God is also mentioned in Revelation, proving that the word choice is intentional:

Scripture Verse: Revelation 10

⁷ But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”

© Copyright Original Source

So I get why what we're saying sounds like foolishness to you, eschaton. You don't have the Spirit of Christ and are trying to discern these things by your own human judgment, which is doomed to failure. And I can make that judgement of you because I do have the Spirit of Christ. See verse 15 above.

I hope you humble yourself, repent, and ask God to give you the Spirit of Christ so that you stop believing and spreading lies.

[eschaton]

These various groups emphasised personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) over the orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of the church.

You can't get much more orthodox than Irenaeus. He railed against the false knowledge of the Gnostics in his day. You should read him. Don't judge by the wrong standards.

Proverbs 1:⁵ A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
⁶ To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
⁷ The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

^{Rom 1:18} For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
¹⁹ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
²⁰ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
²¹ Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
²² Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
²³ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

From the Wikipedia you drew from:

For centuries, most scholarly knowledge of Gnosticism was limited to the anti-heretical writings of orthodox Christian figures such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Hippolytus of Rome.

[seanD]

You're a funny guy Sean. Gnostic comes from gnosis, which is knowledge. Are you against knowledge? It would seem so. Show me one verse in the Bible that is against knowledge. I know of one.

1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: KJV
O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” ESV

Who was probably the biggest opponent of Gnosticism in the early church? I would say, Irenaeus. In his fourth book he says:



Irenaeus wasn't against knowledge. The correct doctrine is based on knowledge.

When I was a kid I loved comic books. Even as an adult I've enjoyed the Marvel brand of movies. However, over the top action where superheroes wrestle with tanks, planes, and other totally ridiculous scenarios have kind of lost me. Maybe I've finally outgrown this sort of thing.

1 Corinthians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

The idea that Jesus comes to earth on a literal horse and dispatches modern armies with wild gyrations of his head seems sort of like an Avengers movie. It was even considered ridiculous in the ancient world.

Well, if that's the route you want to take, I could think of numerous events in the bible that seem "sort of like an Avengers movie, and would be considered ridiculous." A crucified man coming back to life after being dead for three days was considered pretty ridiculous, even for the disciples. An Angel killing tens of thousands of Assyrian troops in one night. The events of Exodus definitely seem like a wild CGI superhero movie. Moses turning staffs into snakes, angels killing thousands, maybe millions of firstborns in one night, are you kidding? Who knows what goes on in the supernatural world and what it's capable of once it manifests itself in the material world. Just because we've been shaped by a modern society to believe these things are farfetched and ridiculous doesn't mean they are. Is that really the place you want to go? Not me, bro. But you do you.

[eschaton]

Well, if that's the route you want to take, I could think of numerous events in the bible that seem "sort of like an Avengers movie, and would be considered ridiculous." A crucified man coming back to life after being dead for three days was considered pretty ridiculous, even for the disciples. An Angel killing tens of thousands of Assyrian troops in one night. The events of Exodus definitely seem like a wild CGI superhero movie. Moses turning staffs into snakes, angels killing thousands, maybe millions of firstborns in one night, are you kidding? Who knows what goes on in the supernatural world and what it's capable of once it manifests itself in the material world. Just because we've been shaped by a modern society to believe these things are farfetched and ridiculous doesn't mean they are. Is that really the place you want to go? Not me, bro. But you do you.

That's a good point SeanD, and something I've often discussed before. Here's something Irenaeus, a staunch supporter of orthodoxy, had to say.

For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. II.XXII.1

The deeper sense of scripture is not a literal understanding. That's why premillennialism is wrong. That's not something I dreamed up off the top of my head, like a false gnostic. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.

Gnosticism is something I have been refuting from my first post in this thread. Hermas refers to 1 Cor 2:13-16 in the quote I gave. That's part of the scripture Darfius gave in his last post. That's how far behind he is.
As far as Irenaeus is concerned, the Wikipedia article on gnosticism uses the name of Irenaeus 22 times. Irenaeus defined and refuted ancient gnosticism. Darfius is trying to refute Irenaeus (and me) with the article.

[seanD]

That's a good point SeanD, and something I've often discussed before. Here's something Irenaeus, a staunch supporter of orthodoxy, had to say.



The deeper sense of scripture is not a literal understanding. That's why premillennialism is wrong. That's not something I dreamed up off the top of my head, like a false gnostic. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John.

Gnosticism is something I have been refuting from my first post in this thread. Hermas refers to 1 Cor 2:13-16 in the quote I gave. That's part of the scripture Darfius gave in his last post. That's how far behind he is.
As far as Irenaeus is concerned, the Wikipedia article on gnosticism uses the name of Irenaeus 22 times. Irenaeus defined and refuted ancient gnosticism. Darfius is trying to refute Irenaeus (and me) with the article.

If you want drop CF names, Papias, who was directly connected to John, was a premillist (believed Christ would return and rule as king on earth), and we know this because that's what Eusebius criticized him for. The Didache, which is not associated with gnostics and dates as early if not earlier than the Shepherd of Hermas also confirms premill futurism. However, I don't put much stock in either CF opinions or non-canonical works on these matters. If you do, then go for it, but you still lose in this case.

Going back to your previous post though makes me troubled. Do honestly believe the Son of God, the Logos, the King of kings and Lord of lords couldn't defeat our modern armies himself? Is that really the stand you take?

[seanD]

So I guess Jesus able to wipe out modern armies with but his words if he so chooses is as fanciful and ridiculous to eschaton as a CGI Avenger movie. That's pretty sad. And you want me to take your mystical and parabolic interpretations of scripture seriously, why?

[eschaton]

So I guess Jesus able to wipe out modern armies with but his words if he so chooses is as fanciful and ridiculous to eschaton as a CGI Avenger movie. That's pretty sad. And you want me to take your mystical and parabolic interpretations of scripture seriously, why?

Hi, sean,
Jesus could wipe out the entire universe by blinking his eye if He wanted to. Why would He put a literal sword in His mouth while riding a literal horse to wipe out modern armies in a cartoonish scene? Especially when there is precedent in scripture for understanding otherwise. Does God forbid people from using their brains? If so then why did He give them one? Does God prefer cartoons to reality? BTW, Jesus taught by parables so I would expect people who believe in Him to take that form of teaching seriously and not reject His teachings. I have already given many verses that prove that point but I guess you just skim over my posts because you've already got your mind made up. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Papias, and others are all considered premillennialist and I have already done a thread proving Irenaeus was not. I will show why the others are not as well. Have you actually read any of those CF? Darfius has labeled Hermas a gnostic so if he was premillennial then pre-mill was gnostic. Actually, Irenaeus branded Cerinthus a heretic because he was pre-mill, so pre-mill was considered heretical in the early church. Hermas, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr all teach the Bible is allegorical and they were taught by people who probably knew the apostles personally. I read the CF because I believe in Jesus and the apostles. I don't believe modern guys who pick up the Bible and declare they know what they're saying and anybody that doesn't agree with them is a heretic. The early church in the first two or three hundred years believed in tracing teachings back to the apostles. That's a big part of how they choose the NT texts.

[Darfius]

Hi, sean,
Jesus could wipe out the entire universe by blinking his eye if He wanted to. Why would He put a literal sword in His mouth while riding a literal horse to wipe out modern armies in a cartoonish scene? Especially when there is precedent in scripture for understanding otherwise. Does God forbid people from using their brains? If so then why did He give them one? Does God prefer cartoons to reality? BTW, Jesus taught by parables so I would expect people who believe in Him to take that form of teaching seriously and not reject His teachings. I have already given many verses that prove that point but I guess you just skim over my posts because you've already got your mind made up. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Papias, and others are all considered premillennialist and I have already done a thread proving Irenaeus was not. I will show why the others are not as well. Have you actually read any of those CF? Darfius has labeled Hermas a gnostic so if he was premillennial then pre-mill was gnostic. Actually, Irenaeus branded Cerinthus a heretic because he was pre-mill, so pre-mill was considered heretical in the early church. Hermas, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr all teach the Bible is allegorical and they were taught by people who probably knew the apostles personally. I read the CF because I believe in Jesus and the apostles. I don't believe modern guys who pick up the Bible and declare they know what they're saying and anybody that doesn't agree with them is a heretic. The early church in the first two or three hundred years believed in tracing teachings back to the apostles. That's a big part of how they choose the NT texts.

Scripture Verse: 2 Peter 1

²⁰ Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

²¹ For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

© Copyright Original Source

How does this jive with your "allegorical" interpretation where anything can mean anything? Which "church father"'s authority do you use to contradict the word of God?

[eschaton]

You couldn't have found a more appropriate verse for this discussion. My ideas are based on scripture, the apostolic tradition in the first few centuries, and the context of those things found in second temple Judaism. The modern literalist is proud to base his opinions on third-grade reading ability. If you examine the history of pre-millennial predictions since the early 19th century you will find hundreds of false predictions. I can give you books to read that thoroughly document this. The one prediction that they are most proud of is the re-establishment of a national Israel, but even that isn't 100% accurate, since in many of those predictions prior to 1947 the seven-year tribulation was supposed to begin at that time.

I want to see the verse where Jesus says thou must interpret the scriptures literally.

[eschaton]

Actually I've already given some verses that explain the basis of allegorical interpretation.

[seanD]

Hi, sean,
Jesus could wipe out the entire universe by blinking his eye if He wanted to. Why would He put a literal sword in His mouth while riding a literal horse to wipe out modern armies in a cartoonish scene? Especially when there is precedent in scripture for understanding otherwise. Does God forbid people from using their brains? If so then why did He give them one? Does God prefer cartoons to reality? BTW, Jesus taught by parables so I would expect people who believe in Him to take that form of teaching seriously and not reject His teachings. I have already given many verses that prove that point but I guess you just skim over my posts because you've already got your mind made up. Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Papias, and others are all considered premillennialist and I have already done a thread proving Irenaeus was not. I will show why the others are not as well. Have you actually read any of those CF? Darfius has labeled Hermas a gnostic so if he was premillennial then pre-mill was gnostic. Actually, Irenaeus branded Cerinthus a heretic because he was pre-mill, so pre-mill was considered heretical in the early church. Hermas, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr all teach the Bible is allegorical and they were taught by people who probably knew the apostles personally. I read the CF because I believe in Jesus and the apostles. I don't believe modern guys who pick up the Bible and declare they know what they're saying and anybody that doesn't agree with them is a heretic. The early church in the first two or three hundred years believed in tracing teachings back to the apostles. That's a big part of how they choose the NT texts.

Is Jesus supposed to return in a F-22 Raptor? Is he supposed to rain down a bunch of nukes? How is he supposed to return? It's too bad you consider that cartoonish. To me, that just reeks of modernism bias. The Logos returning on a white horse with a sword to defeat modern armies is pretty majestic if you ask me. To each his own.

Again, I don't put much stock in CF's on this issue, but isn't it strange to you that the earliest CFs were premil? To me, that's an indication that premil is probably the legit position, because not only were they obviously closest to the actual teachings of the apostles, but it makes sense that premil position fell into less favor later on when the centuries rolled by and the church began to wonder why Jesus wasn't returning. The solution? Reinterpret the scripture a different way to solve this issue.

And no one's denying there is symbolism and parables in the bible. It's just that not everything in scripture is symbolic and parabolic, and this is what gnostics and skeptics like John D. Crossan argue (that should tell you something). Most of it is literal.

[eschaton]

With both you and Darfius it seems I give an explanation and then you ask the question.

What does Logos mean? Doesn't it mean the Word? Jesus represents the Word as the Word incarnate in the Gospel. So would you see the black and white word printed on paper riding a horse? That's a literal understanding. Would you see Jesus in a jet plane as you suggest? I gave verses Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12 as an explanation. Then I gave an ancient commentary that explained their use. I'm just wasting my time I guess. You say you don't put much stock in the teachings of the apostles found in the early church. That's okay, you don't have to. You can believe anything you want to. If you believe a man has to re-enter his mother's womb then you're free to do so. (John 3:4) I know you would rather believe something you come up with yourself, but I believe the Bible should be interpreted with ideas of wisdom that were found in the world at the time they were written. That's reading the Bible in context.

If you read modern scholars and ancient ones like Eusebius, you will find that fathers such as Papias, Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus were considered pre-mill. I've read the original fathers and I say it's not true. For instance, Eusebius identified Cerinthus as an early pre-mill heretic. If Irenaeus was pre-mill why did he condemn Cerinthius also? One of the two had to be wrong. Darfius has labeled Hermas an early gnostic. Irenaeus quoted Hermas as scripture. Irenaeus is considered an identifier of orthodoxy and Gnosticism. Something is wrong somewhere. Again, give me the scripture where Jesus literally says that most of the Bible have to be interpreted literally.